Now the Hype is gone: Modern Warfare 2 (part 2)

This Retrospective review of Modern Warfare 2 was originally going to be a comparison between itself and Black Ops 2. Both had the story about an invaded America and both had multiplayer that was considered by many in the community to be the best in series. However, I figured both have very different approaches when you get down to it, and never is it more apparent than their multiplayer design.

Modern Warfare 2 differs from most other entries by going all out with its now blockbuster level budget, and is definitely bigger than its immediate predecessor Call of Duty 4. There are more killstreaks, more weapons, more equipment, more modes, more of EVERYTHING…
But does that make it a better game?

Again, comparing to Black Ops 2, the single best word to describe Modern Warfare 2 in terms of multiplayer is ‘unrestrained’. Many elements that were toned down and refined to perfection in Black Ops 2 were let loose in this instalment, which leads to a gulf in enjoyment for the player. They can relish in the enjoyment of blowing up entire teams with grenades and shotguns, or they will be pummelled into the ground for half the match before they can get their feet and counterattack. This one element is enough to make it a love/hate game.

For starters, you are given approximately double the amount of available equipment from Call of Duty 4, and a lot of these, while misplaced, are all fun to use and offer a viable tactical advantage when used in the right way. The interesting thing about the weapons on offer is that despite having more, the balance isn't as all over the place as you might think, and all offer their own unique feel.  Modern Warfare 2 decided to add a decisively updated arsenal upon the CoD4 arsenal (which were relatively prevalent in modern times, but felt like the game took place in the 1990’s rather than present day). MW2 included the likes of the FAMAS, ACR, Intervention, UMP45 and TAR21 to feel like these were the weapons of now, and likely the near future. There are strong but slow automatics, fast firing but low damage hoses, semi auto powerhouses, burst fire precision rifles, and all act different to others in class. Its a well rounded class, and this works better than future instalments like Black Ops, which instead of offering variety, made clone weapons to balance. 

See anything you like?

Perks are reduced a bit from CoD4, in favour of adding pro perks as extra bonuses. Unnecessary perks from the predecessor, such as the ability to hold breath longer when sniping, work far better as extra pro variants for better perks in this game. With the exception of perhaps scrambler, all perks have their purpose and can be used to great effect, even if one or two perks feel better than others (more on that near the end).

And of course, killstreaks got increased from the base three from previous games to a whole host of reward options. AC130's, UAV's, Care Packages, Attach Helicopters and even a game winning nuclear strike can be earned through enough kills. This can be gamebreaking for many, as the rewards stack with kills and some are squashing to the enemy team. However, this really is a defining addition to Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer. The whole risk and reward element of picking higher rewards and then having it pay off is such a part of the strategy in this game that its hard to imagine it without rewards.

However, to play with great equipment and perk choices on poor maps would give MW2 a very bad rep. MW2 wins a lot of credit back in its map design and a lot of the community agree that this game has the best core maps of the recent series. The designers based maps around variety, some verticality and very well placed areas for combat. Rust for example is all Close quarters all the time while Afghan is made for domination with a fairly circular path leading to all three flags. The maps are also memorable in many ways because they all cater to different styles while also usually having some areas that can be effective for any class.

Highrise is a classic example of this. The map is suited for a general deathmatch, yet it contains a central elevated roof for snipers, two office buildings for close quarters, and tunnels for stealthy players. Even with that variety, there are areas inbetween, such as the long passages between the two office buildings that cater to a standard aggressive playstyle.

While Highrise may be the ultimate deathmatch map, by contrast Wasteland is built for Snipers with lots of grass and wide open spaces. Even here, the map has three trenches that lead to a chaotic bunker for those that want to play faster.

The gameplay is adapted to each map, and to succeed you must memorise the locations, know where the best spots to use your given class is, and if on an objective game mode, the fastest routes to the flag or bomb. Future games in the series have relied on a three lane system, which is good to play but eventually leads to having similar strategies for every match, and it becomes routine quicker.

We are looking at you Black Ops 2!

In this case, variety trumps philosophy, and Modern Warfare 2 is more varied. There are some three lane maps, such as Sub Base, but many maps are full of surprise routes and suitable cover to make for a lot more tactics to succeed.

While the game has a lot in its favour, the problem with the unrestrained MW2 is that it ultimately is unbalanced to this day. This boils down to many quirks that weren’t ironed out by release, and more so, weren’t patched after release. Many point to the West/Zampella exodus of Infinity Ward as the reason why many issues never got patched. The worst offender of balance issues that remains unresolved today is pairing the One Man Army or Scavenger perks with Danger Close and spamming grenades indefinitely. Other issues include the overly long Commando lunge, the Powerful Shotguns as secondary weapons, Tactical insertion in Free for all, party chat issues and broken suppressors on some weapons.

Despite this, the game did get a few patches early on, such as the Javelin patch, Model 1887 nerf and fast sprinting cut from holding a care package marker. If only this sort of repair happened for the duration of the games lifecycle, this would be the game that all can enjoy.

And now onto a truly subjective point, not one with much in the way of balancing the good and bad parts. Just a question; is this game more fun to play regardless of how it got to where it is?

And for me Modern Warfare 2’s multiplayer is a tonne of fun. For all the balancing issues, killstreak problems and rich get richer gameplay, its hard not to admit that it is more rewarding to play when things go your way than other entries in the series. A lot of silly stuff is allowed to work here. Even if you hate things like quickscoping, tubing, shotgun rampages and dependence on equipment, you can still play very well with a solid all round class and show them who is boss. Others can be happy with their style, and you can be happy with yours, and there is a game mode for everyone.

Over time, this still is my favourite, and on its own merits it deserved the hype it got when it was released in 2009. The blockbuster budget nearly made it fly off the rails, but its still built on rock solid shooting and options. The graphics may not wow like they once did, but they work and have aged better than MW3's duller palette. If you never played a Call of Duty game, this may not be the best to start, but this is definitely the one if you want to find out why people love and hate the series.

Now the hype is gone: Modern Warfare 2 (Part 1)

I thought I may as well get an obligatory Call of Duty game out of the way for a review on its own terms now that the hype has faded. This will be done in two parts, one with Single Player and one with Multiplayer. Anyway, the series as a whole can range from universally praised, to a hated test of ‘MURICA!!', to ….an experiment that maybe now looks like it didn’t work. Some love it, some hate it, but its one of the few series to really be a mainstream hit with the masses.

I decided to go with Modern Warfare 2, mainly because it felt like the game that aimed the highest, being the direct sequel to the universally loved Call of Duty 4. It also had enough technical polish to make it stand out from most games at the time, before people started complaining that it was just more of the same every year. And lest we forget that it was by far the game with the most media attention, with the ‘No Russian’ mission setting a new watermark for violence in gaming.

But does it really deserve to be credited with being the ultimate multiplayer shooter by many fans? Does the story have more to it than one infamously controversial mission? What is IN here that keeps players coming back to this game instead of other titles in the series?

Also note, that THIS IS SPOILER TERRITORY! You have been warned, although it has been over 5 years now.

NOW WE'RE SPOILING!

Beginning with the single player, we need to see how the missions and story are structured. The game shares a lot with a few other of the latter half of Call of Duty titles in that the story can be boiled down to “America gets invaded and must fight back”. However, this can be done in a variety of ways. Black Ops II executed the story in such a way that you question whether the player’s actions are truly right, while fighting a groundroots movement with somewhat legitimate grievances. Ghosts meanwhile made it painfully apparent that America just got attacked by South America simply because the nations wanted to take over the place…not much context in game lads.

Modern Warfare 2 goes with a situation where the Russians get tricked into war by blaming an American soldier for a terrorist attack, and the game revolves around sorting out the conflict from that point on. This is not a bad setup, and ultimately there are twists and turns from the various characters you encounter. Makarov is an obvious bad guy, and the soldiers you are accompanied by are willing to do anything to complete the missions. The missions are played out either from the US Army Rangers perspective of defending against Russian forces in the east coast of the U.S, or from Task Force 141 as they covertly track down Makarov’s ultimate whereabouts.

Time to save the world

When this was released I enjoyed everything about the story, mainly for the intensity of the scenarios and striking impact, but after a playthrough this week, all I can think of the story is this: Awesome Silliness.  The first mission in Afghanistan is what to expect for a game styled as modern warfare, but the Cliffhanger mission sets the tone for the majority of the story once you get into a snowmobile escape chase. Its intense! The Hanz Zimmer score is pumping, you end up jumping over a gorge to complete the mission. Absolute silliness, and not exactly what you think of for a semblance of realism, but at that point you check the brain at the door for context and just go with it and enjoy all the Hollywood blockbuster style the missions provide.

As you play, you get a real sense of the production values and the star power of the story. The aforementioned Hanz Zimmer score is the best for any Call of Duty game, and really is what I remember most with hindsight. The missions simply wouldn’t be the same without it at times. The aesthetic design of the missions are more colourful than Call of Duty 4’s, with more emphasis on red for the American front and the 141 missions tend to veer more for the arctic conditions in Russian territory. The set pieces could still work well in today’s market (heck, ghosts DID reuse one for its intro) and you do still feel relatively in control. More recent CoD games tend to have the player lower their gun to indicate a scripted sequence of characters talking and such, so having none of that sorts gives the player a sense that they can shoot up the place at any time. The action peaks and valleys work superbly, with a tendency for one mission to be bombastic while another involves smaller skirmishes and specialty. This in particular is something MW3 got wrong with its campaign, too bombastic is a bad thing.

Perhaps its greatest asset is that behind the perfected technical standpoint lies a game where the creators actually had a passion to make this game.  Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield 3 were sold as technical masterpieces for the genre, but it must be said that the little things MW2 features transcend it from being merely a technical showcase. The death screens have the usual features such as death by grenades, but did you know that there is one for getting blown up by a jet engine?

The game’s single player is filled with tidbits and easter eggs that makes it fun to play through. The Terminator’s Model 1887, the Aliens Heartbeat sensor, the James Bond esque escape on snowmobiles, the Wolverines! Mission, all are thrown in and more to enjoyable effect. Even at the end credits there is a photograph of the main cast looking set for a mission. The Museum epilogue is a great idea of showing the dev’s animations and art assets in an interactive way (and if you REALLY must, you can press the red button…if you dare)

And the impact of the set pieces is well done to complete things. Shepherds Betrayal, Escaping the Favela, Retaking the White House, the Final Speedboat chase. Even the Final Boss is enjoyable, despite being nothing but Quicktime events. Such highs are so good that it barely registers that Makarov’s presence really fizzles out at the end and you forget about him.

While there is a lot of praise to be said about the overall campaign, there are issues, especially when analysing through the lens of time. And this brings things to No Russian…

No retrospective review of MW2 is complete without an opinion on ‘No Russian’. Is it Encouraging terrorists? Is it just a shock for the sake of shock? Is it a chance for Infinity Ward to push the envelope of an interactive narrative in gaming? Well, In my opinion there is no doubt that while it’s the most well-known part of the campaign, it’s also the most gratuitous. Perhaps its not as gratuitous as MW3’s killing of a child, that felt very poor in taste for feeling that it was done for the sake of having controversy. Of course, we have something that definitely shocks. Everything feels very real, right down to the forced movement speed to show a deliberate side to Makarov’s spree. While you have the option of not killing until the FSB show up, it is very hard to act out such a role without firing at least a few shots in the air. And it’s not all that surprising that you get killed at the end of the mission, since acting this casually controversial in gaming is a good way to get negative karma. Your body is the plot point at the end of the day as well. Overall, this mission could have been skipped (heck, the game tells you you can!) and little would change if a cutscene replaced it.

On the other side of the coin, this does feel like a successor mission to drive the story, similar to Call of Duty 4’s Nuclear explosion. That game challenged the notion of player character immunity, and this feels like an attempt to show the horrors of this sort of violence in an all too familiar setting. While you can challenge MW3 for poor taste and non-existent context, this mission seems different, like its following through with its point. No Russian has enough context to justify its inclusion in the game, and the end scene does feel like a gutpunch for all the murdering you have committed.

And while No Russian is infamous, it is not the only part of the campaign that has issues. While it felt cutting edge for military shooters at the time, the story is very cliché at points and requires checking your brain at the door when viewed with today’s standards. Makarov starts out as a very hate-able villain, but his presence really downgrades as the story goes on in favour of Commander Shepherd. The blatant sequel bait is another issue that hurts the game, since Call of Duty 4 was very much self-contained. This sequel feels like it is missing the U.S counteroffensive in Russia, and a proper Makarov showdown, both of which get resolved in Modern Warfare 3. The graphics are still impressive and the more colourful aesthetic give it a better art style than its sequel, but it still has aged over time, especially after games like Advanced Warfare and Battlefield 3 have shown considerable advancements in facial features and the Frostbite engines capabilities respectively. The overarching story also feels looser than it should with some scenarios, with the oil rig mission in particular feeling like a mission that could have been removed from the game with minimal detriment to the story. Another issue with the story is some loose plot points. The player never really finds out how the V.I.P in the suburbs was killed by one of Makarov's Henchmen, or why just one A.C.S module was enough to disrupt the Eastern seaboard conveniently for an invasion.

Again, awesome silliness

That said, the campaign has held its own over time and is still an enjoyable thrill ride from beginning to end. The silliness had taken over from the relatively grounded CoD4, but not to the point of disrupting the tone of the story, like MW3. Its what the second instalment of a trilogy should be, an improvement in many ways over the original, adding its own flair, and expanding concepts. Sure, some don’t work, and its not going to be considered among the best military storylines but it does its job with brilliance nonetheless.

Join me in Part 2 when I cover the Multiplayer and Special Ops